7 August 2013

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 12 August 2013 at 7:00PM.

Attention is directed to the statement accompanying this notice of the business proposed to be transacted at the meeting.

Yours faithfully

 

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.?????????? LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

2.?????????? APOLOGIES

 

3.?????????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 8 July 2013.

 

4.?????????? DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Pecuniary Interest (The Act requires Councillors who declare a pecuniary interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest ? Significant and Less than Significant (The Code of Conduct requires Councillors who declare a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

 

5.?????????? ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.?????????? MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.?????????? NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.?????????? NOTICES OF MOTION

?

9.?????????? DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.???????? REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

11.???????? URGENT BUSINESS

 

12.???????? CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 12 August 2013

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


Council_Mark_POS_RGB2013 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2013 - December 2013

(adopted by Council 19/11/12)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23^?

(7.00pm)

 

 

16

(7.00pm)

 

25@

25

29v

27#

24 *

22

26@

30

21

25#+

 

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

 

11

11

15

13

17

8

12

9

14

11

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?v

Meeting at which the draft corporate planning documents (Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Operational Plan, Resource Strategy) are endorsed for exhibition

?*

Meeting at which the draft corporate planning documents (Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Operational Plan, Resource Strategy) are adopted

?#

Meetings at which the Operational Plan quarterly reviews (March and September) are presented

?@

Meetings at which the Delivery Program progress reports (including the Operational Plan quarterly reviews for June and December) are presented

?^

Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

??

Meeting at which the 2012-2013 Annual Statements are presented

?

Meeting at which any comments on the 2012-2013 Annual Statements are presented

?+

Meeting at which the Annual Report is presented

-            Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

-            Members of the public are invited to observe meetings of the Council (Ordinary and Policy Review Committee).

Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil.

?


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

?OF THE POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE PASSADENA ROOM, PENRITH

ON MONDAY 8 JULY 2013 AT 7:00PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Bernard Bratusa, Kevin Crameri OAM, Marcus Cornish, Greg Davies (arrived 7:06pm), Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow OAM, Tricia Hitchen, Karen McKeown, John Thain and Michelle Tormey.

?

APOLOGIES

PRC 37? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen that apologies be received for Councillors Maurice Girotto and Prue Car.

?

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 17 June 2013

PRC 38? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Tricia? Hitchen that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 17 June 2013 be confirmed.

?

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

?

There were no declarations of interest.

?

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 1 - We can work close to home

 

1??????? Outcomes of public exhibition of draft amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 to include Panthers Penrith Precinct????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 39? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.?? The information contained in the report on Outcomes of public exhibition of draft amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 to include Panthers Penrith Precinct be received.

2.?? Council notes and endorses the recommended refinements to the exhibited draft amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 for the Panthers Penrith Precinct.

3.?? Council adopt the amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 as appended to this report.

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a DIVISION was then called with the following result:

For

Against

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Michelle Tormey

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa???

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

?

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

2??????? Presentation of the Draft Penrith Community Safety Plan 2013-2016

Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager, Yvonne Perkins introduced the report and invited Community Safety Co-ordinator Allison Kyriakakis to give a presentation.

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting, the time being 7:13pm.
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 7:17pm.???????????????????????????

PRC 40? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Presentation of the Draft Penrith Community Safety Plan 2013-2016 be received.

2.???? Council support that the Draft Community Safety Plan be placed on public exhibition for a 30 day period.

3.???? Following the 30 day exhibition period, the Draft Community Safety Plan be re-submitted to Council for adoption.

4.???? Council?s Community Safety Team and the Penrith Community Safety Partnership be thanked for their efforts in preparing the Draft Community Plan.

?

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

3??????? 2013 Local Government NSW Annual Conference???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 41? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on 2013 Local Government NSW Annual Conference be received.

2.???? The issues detailed in the report be submitted for inclusion in the 2013 Local Government NSW Annual Conference Business Paper by 19 July 2013.

3. ??? An additional Issue be put forward to the Local Government NSW Conference on Regional Infrastructure detailing the need for federal investment to support in particular the transport infrastructure to support growth area councils.

?

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7:57pm.

????


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

1??????? Council wins Health Community Award at 2013 Local Government Awards ??????????????? 1

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

?

Mayoral Minute

Council wins Health Community Award at 2013 Local Government Awards

Strategy: Provide opportunities for our community to be healthy and active

???????????

 

I am proud to advise that Council?s initiatives including our Health Strategy and Action Plan won Council the Heart Foundation Healthy Community Award at the 2013 Local Government Week Awards.

 

The award was accepted on behalf of Council by Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM at the annual awards dinner, held on Thursday 1 August in Pyrmont. The prestigious annual awards recognise excellence in local government.

 

The Heart Foundation recognised our long term commitment to promoting health and wellbeing, as demonstrated in the Community Strategic Plan, and our success in working closely with key organisations and stakeholders to ensure initiatives are more effective and reach target groups in our community.

 

Council has previously won a Commendation award for our draft Health Strategy and Action Plan in the 2010 NSW Awards for Excellence in Planning. The draft Health Strategy also won the Commendation in The Planning Institute of Australia NSW Division?s Planning for Healthy Urban Environments category in 2010.

 

Some recent highlights in our work to promote a healthy community include:

 

???? installing outdoor gym equipment

???? smoke free school entrances at an additional 21 schools

???? childcare education programs

???? consulting children on a new playground design

???? construction of shared bike trails and bike parking facilities and

???? coordinating Heart Foundation walking groups.

 

I would like to congratulate all staff involved in these initiatives and projects, particularly Environmental Health Manager, Graham Liehr, and Health Strategy Officer, Monique Desmarchelier.

Council was also a finalist in the Excellence in Communication category of the RH Dougherty Awards, the highest accolade a NSW council can receive in the area of communications, for our Penrith is Here brand campaign.

 

Councillor Mark Davies

Mayor

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Council wins Health Community Award at 2013 Local Government Awards be received.

 

 

??


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

?

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1??????? Development at Penrith Lakes Scheme: Representations from the Nepean District Historical Society regarding Birds Eye Corner ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1

 

2??????? Fernhill Development Application 13/0653 - lot consolidation subdivision and events ?? 5

??

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

3??????? Queen Street St Marys Streetscape Improvement Plan ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? 13

 

4??????? Our River ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16

?

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

5??????? Penrith City Council's Draft Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Policy ??????????????? 25

?

Outcome 6 - We're healthy and share strong community spirit

 

6??????? Storage Facility at Peppertree Reserve and Netball Courts at Boronia Park ????????????????? 33

??

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 1 - We can work close to home

 

 

There were no reports under this Delivery Program when the Business Paper was compiled


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

1??????? Development at Penrith Lakes Scheme: Representations from the Nepean District Historical Society regarding Birds Eye Corner ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1

 

2??????? Fernhill Development Application 13/0653 - lot consolidation subdivision and events ?? 5

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

?

 

 

1

Development at Penrith Lakes Scheme: Representations from the Nepean District Historical Society regarding Birds Eye Corner???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Schandel Jefferys, Senior Planner ?

Authorised by:??????????? Paul Grimson, Manager - Strategic Planning??

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Protect the City's natural areas, heritage and character

Service Activity

Maintain a contemporary framework of land use and contribution policies, strategies and statutory plans

???????

 

Executive Summary

The Nepean District Historical Society recently made representations raising concerns regarding the quarrying of land at Birds Eye Corner on Old Castlereagh Road and access to the historical features of the Penrith Lakes Scheme.?

The quarrying operations and formation of lakes at Penrith Lakes Scheme is undertaken in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989.? The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is both the consent and regulating authority for these works.? Consent was granted by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for the quarrying of part of Old Castlereagh Road under Development Application No.4.?

The representation made by the Nepean District Historical Society regarding heritage issues has been forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.???

Background

The Penrith Lakes Scheme (the Scheme) is a 2,000 hectare development site located on the Castlereagh floodplain at the foothills of the Blue Mountains.? The site supplies sand and crushed aggregate to the Sydney construction market.?

Development of the site is governed by State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989 along with a Deed of Agreement between the NSW State Government and the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC).?

The Scheme seeks to provide a water-based regional recreation resource of some 1,500 hectares for Western Sydney and an opportunity to deliver quality housing outcomes that contribute to the Government?s housing targets outlined in the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036.? Construction of the Scheme commenced in 1987 and is now drawing to a close with the majority of the major earthworks and lake formation nearing completion.?

The planning and implementation of the Scheme is the responsibility of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.? Council officers have been in contact with the Department?s representatives in relation to the road closure.? The closure of Castlereagh Road has a long history and is an important element to the design of the overall Penrith Lakes Scheme.

In 2007 Castlereagh Road was realigned to its current location and this work was entirely funded by PLDC?s shareholder companies.? PLDC carried out the realignment works then gifted the new road to the State Government in 2009.??

Existing Approvals

In 1998 the Minister for Planning approved the Water Infrastructure Plan as part of Development Application No.4 (DA 4) which incorporated the construction of the final stages of the Scheme.? This stage involves the construction of a major detention basin in the south-western corner of the Scheme which necessitates the quarrying of Old Castlereagh Road.?

 

This basin is required so that water entering from the eastern existing urban catchment and the Nepean River can be managed so that suitable water quality is achieved to permit recreational uses in the Sydney International Regatta Centre.?

 

Heritage studies submitted with DA 4 confirmed that, while Old Castlereagh Road has historic and symbolic associations with early settlement and subdivision of the Castlereagh and Upper Castlereagh areas, there was no evidence of Colonial-era construction.? In this regard, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure resolved that retention of the Old Castlereagh Road was not warranted.

PLDC also confirmed that extensive studies of Old Castlereagh Road and the locations of the original land allotments were undertaken by heritage experts prior to quarrying works being undertaken.? They have also confirmed that permits have been obtained from the NSW Heritage Branch under delegation from the NSW Heritage Council for the works within the Scheme.?

These studies revealed that 3.3km of the original Old Castlereagh Road should be retained and in future is to be incorporated into the Penrith Lakes Parklands.? The studies showed that portions of the road to be retained will provide an appropriate curtilage of at least 22m of the natural in situ soils.?

 

PLDC confirmed that following the completion of the detention basin and the reinstated landforms the heritage features of the site will be conserved as a whole and the landscape character of the setting will reinterpret the line of site and land grant boundaries.? PLDC also has a concept landscape masterplan for the precinct which includes the following design principles:

 

???? A controlled arrival sequence that sets the scene on approach to the heritage group of buildings.

???? Open vistas to enhance appreciation of the original rural setting.

???? Vegetation patterns which reflect the formal land grant geometry.

???? Enhanced views to the Blue Mountains, the surrounding lakes and the Old Castlereagh Road alignment.

???? New linkages to connect the heritage items with the wider aspect of the Scheme.?

 

 

 

 

 

Access to the Heritage Precinct

 

PLDC has confirmed that an alternate access road is to be provided to maintain and improve access to the heritage precinct.? This alternate access road will provide continuous access to the Church, Cemetery, Church Hall, the School, Headmaster?s residence and War Memorial.?

 

The sealed access road is planned to run along the western boundary of the Sydney International Regatta Centre then turn west to rejoin Old Castlereagh Road.? PLDC has advised the access road is located 35 metres to the south of the grove of trees planted in the ?International Year of the Tree? and as a result none of the trees dedicated to family groups will be disturbed by the location of the access road.?

 

On completion of the detention basin PLDC has advised, the heritage precinct will be conserved as a whole and the landscape character of the setting will reinterpret the line of sight and land grant boundaries.?

 

Conclusion

 

The representations made by the Nepean District Historical Society were forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure who has responded in the letter at Appendix A.? PLDC has also confirmed that all works within the Scheme are carried out in accordance with heritage recommendations and with the appropriate consents from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and other relevant agencies.?

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Development at Penrith Lakes Scheme: Representations from the Nepean District Historical Society regarding Birds Eye Corner be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Letter from Department of Planning and Infrastructure

1 Page

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

Appendix 1 - Letter from Department of Planning and Infrastructure

 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

?

 

 

2

Fernhill Development Application 13/0653 - lot consolidation subdivision and events???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Belinda Borg, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:??????????? Peter Wood, Acting Development Services Manager ??

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Facilitate development that encourages a range of housing types

Service Activity

Delivery timely assessment, regulation and certification of development and building work in accordance with statutory requirements

???????

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

Executive Summary

 

Council received a development application from Simon & Brenda Tripp with Angus Securities on 28 June 2013 for subdivision and conducting events at 1041 ? 1117 Mulgoa Road, Mulgoa, which is also known as the Fernhill Estate.?? It is also anticipated that separate development applications will be received for another ?Tough Mudder? event and picnic races in the coming weeks.

 

The proponents of the Development Application will provide a presentation at the Policy Review Committee to supplement the information about the proposal within this report.

Background

The Fernhill Estate is identified as a State Significant Heritage Item, with the main residence (single storey ashlar sandstone house) being completed in 1845. Various structures are located on the site in addition to the main residence including the stables and coach house, swimming pool, winery ruin, stone bridges, sheds, dams and rural fencing. The remnants of a horse track area is also located on the site.

The most recent Development Application relating to the site was for the ?Tough Mudder? Event, which was held on 13 - 14 April 2013, as a temporary use of the site.

 

Development Proposal

 

This application is applying for:

 

???????? Lot consolidation of 14 allotments

 

???????? Subdivision of land within the south-eastern portion of the Estate to create 54 residential lots of varying land sizes of 904m2 to 2205m2 civil works for roads, stormwater and infrastructure services

 

???????? Subdivision of land within the western portion of the Estate to create 38 rural - residential lots of varying land sizes of 2 ? 3 hectares civil works for roads, stormwater and infrastructure services

 

 

???????? Upgrades to portions of Mulgoa Road and Fairlight Road adjacent to the subject site to facilitate access to the above uses

???????? Use of land, existing structures and temporary structures for the purpose of:

-?? Events and functions for up to 2,500 persons.

-?? Outdoor entertainment (cinema / concerts) for up to 2,500 persons.

-?? Sporting activities comprising sports training and minor competitions for attendance for up to 2,500 persons.

 

???????? Occasional use of land, existing structures and temporary structures for the purpose of:

-?? Events and functions up to 10,000 persons.

-?? Outdoor entertainment (cinema / concerts) for up to 10,000 persons.

-?? Sporting activities comprising sports training and minor competitions for attendance for up to 10,000 persons.

 

???????? Use of land, existing structures and temporary structures for the purposes of a camping ground and markets ancillary to the above uses

 

???????? Use of land, existing structures and temporary structures for the use of an Equestrian Centre comprising agistment, equestrian training and equestrian events

 

Planning Assessment

 

The following planning instruments and policies are applicable:

 

???????? Heritage Act 1977

???????? Water Management Act 2000

???????? Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 20 ? Hawkesbury / Nepean River

???????? State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007

???????? State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

???????? Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation)

???????? Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010

???????? Penrith Development Control Plan 2010.

 

The proposal is considered to be an Integrated Development Application, with concurrence required from the following stakeholders:

 

-?? Office of Heritage

-?? Office of Water

-?? Rural Fire Service

 

Assessment of the application is being carried out and the proponents have been required to provide additional information in relation to the Heritage Conservation Management Plan, Event Management Plan, building footprints details relating to the subdivision, on-site sewerage management and bushfire information.

 

Upon receipt of the information, the proposal will be advertised and notified in accordance with Section F4 Notification and Advertising of the Penrith Development Control Plan 2010 and referrals will be sent to relevant authorities for consideration. Consultation with a number of other relevant stakeholders will also occur as a part of the assessment, including the Roads and Maritime Service, Western Sydney Area Health Service, NSW Police, NSW Ambulance Service and the State Emergency Service.

 

At this stage Council is the consent authority based on the information submitted with the application and the application will be reported to Council for determination.? Councillors will be kept informed of the progress of the assessment and advised of the receipt of any further applications.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Fernhill Development Application 13/0653 - lot consolidation subdivision and events be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

 

There were no reports under this Delivery Program when the Business Paper was compiled


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

3??????? Queen Street St Marys Streetscape Improvement Plan ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? 13

 

4??????? Our River ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

?

 

 

3

Queen Street St Marys Streetscape Improvement Plan???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Karin Schicht, Landscape Architecture Supervisor

Elizabeth Roxburgh, Landscape Architect

Authorised by:??????????? Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager ??

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Grow and revitalise our centres and neighbourhoods

Service Activity

Support the revitalisation of Penrith City Centre, St Marys Town Centre and other key identified places in the City

???????

 

Executive Summary

Consultant Spackman, Mossop and Michaels has developed the preferred concept for improvements to Queen St into a draft Streetscape Improvement Plan. This draft Streetscape Improvement Plan contains more detailed plans and graphics along with a succinct narrative explanation of the project, processes, findings to date and Improvement Plan. The concept in this draft Streetscape Improvement Plan differs very little from the preferred concept presented to Councillors on 15 July Briefing. The purpose of this report is to seek Council?s endorsement to place the draft Streetscape Improvement Plan on public exhibition.

Background

The development of the Streetscape Improvement Plan (SIP) has involved a comprehensive program of community engagement and several signoffs by the project team, Council and the community. The Streetscape Improvement Plan will inform the detailed design documentation and subsequent staged implementation of works as part of Council?s adopted City Centres Renewal and Improvement Project (recent SRV) program. For the purposes of this project, a Streetscape Improvement Plan is described as a blueprint of what is going to happen where. It will reveal a reasonable level of detail to inform the later detailed design and tender documentation for the construction of the future staged projects.

Draft Streetscape Improvement Plan

At the Councillor Briefing on 15 July 2013, consultants Spackman, Mossop and Michaels presented the preferred concept.? The preferred concept is based on Councillor, community and stakeholder feedback received on the three concept options: Green Way; Lighting and Art; and Market Place.

 

Responses from targeted consultation and investigations brought forward no negative commentary other than concerns around traffic flow around the drop off zone at the railway station end of Queen St which is addressed in the draft SIP.? These responses along with feedback from Councillors have led to the development of the draft Streetscape Improvement Plan, which contains a greater level of detail than the preferred concept plan.

 

There have been no significant changes to the components of the preferred concept plan presented in the draft Streetscape Improvement Plan since the preferred concept.? In July the designs went through an internal review with the project team.? The draft Streetscape Improvement Plan is now considered ready for public exhibition.?

 

There have been some initial discussions around the staged implementation of the Streetscape Improvement Plan with feedback sought from Councillors, the Town Centre Corporation and in the community workshops; however there are a number of external development dependencies and at this stage the intent is to seek endorsement of the overall streetscape plan with a staging strategy yet to be agreed.

 

The recent Special Rate Variation (SRV) provides funding to commence the identified improvements to the St Marys and Penrith City Centres.  It has been envisaged that this catalyst funding would be complemented by development to deliver the complete program of works across the two centres.  In keeping with this the full extent of the Streetscape improvements exceeds the funding available through the SRV and further workshopping of the implementation strategy across both centres is required.

 

Program and Next Steps

The following table outlines the key components of the project which will lead to implementation of public domain improvements in Queen Street.

 

Item

Description / milestone

Involvement by

When

1

Informal Councillor Briefing

Councillors

Complete

2

Intensive community engagement phase

Community, key stakeholders, staff

Complete

3

Presentation of place making strategy and concept options (drawings)

Councillors

6 May Councillor Briefing

4

Community engagement with concept(s)

?

Community, key stakeholders, staff

Saturday street stand and Community W?shop #2, complete

5

Develop draft SIP Plan

Council officers

June

6

Presentation of preferred concept / draft SIP at 80%

Councillors ? will enable team to refine draft SIP

15 July Councillor Briefing

7

Draft SIP Plan for exhibition

Councillors ? approve for endorsement for public exhibition

12 August? Policy Review Committee? Meeting (NOW)

8

Draft SIP Plan for exhibition

Councillors ? formal endorsement for public exhibition

26 August Ordinary Council Meeting

9

Public exhibition, including presentation to stakeholders

Community, stakeholders, staff

September

10

Develop Implementation and Staging Plan and Final SIP

Council Officers

August - September

11

Final SIP, Implementation and Staging Plan

Councillors - endorse final SIP

21 October Ordinary Council Meeting

12

Tender documentation of stage 1 (engage consultant, documentation, approvals)

Major Projects Department

tba

13

Tender process and construction of stage 1

Major Projects Department, contractor

tba

 

Pending Council?s endorsement, the draft Streetscape Improvement Plan will be placed on public exhibition during September 2013. Council?s Access Committee members will have the opportunity to comment and will be advised of the exhibition period once dates have been determined. Exhibition and notification will include local paper Mayoral columns, library displays, Council?s website, flyer drops to shops on the streets affected and direct communication with those involved and registered with the project to date.

 

Following the exhibition period, the draft Streetscape Improvement Plan will be reviewed and refined, and the report updated to take into consideration the feedback received. Indicative costs will be developed and a staging and implementation strategy developed with the project team.

 

The final Streetscape Improvement Plan will then be reported to Council seeking adoption.? From this point on, the preparation of construction documentation can commence for the delivery of works under the SRV capital works program.? At any stage during the project, any feedback received from constituents by Councillors should be forwarded to Council?s project team for consideration (via the Major Projects Manager).

 

Conclusion

The extensive community engagement program undertaken with this project will continue through the public exhibition period, with a draft Streetscape Improvement Plan that is underpinned by community responses and internal Council officer technical input.? A summary of responses from the exhibition period will be presented to Council with the final Streetscape Improvement Plan for adoption, after which detailed design and construction documentation for implementation can commence.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Queen Street St Marys Streetscape Improvement Plan be received.

2.???? The Draft St Marys Streetscape Improvement Plan be endorsed for public exhibition.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Draft Queen st St Marys Streetscape Improvement Plan

30 Pages

Attachment

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

?

 

 

4

Our River???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Karin Schicht, Landscape Architecture Supervisor

Authorised by:??????????? Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager??

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Improve our public spaces and places

Service Activity

Manage and maintain the City's sports grounds, parks and open space

???????

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to obtain endorsement for the draft Our River masterplan to go on public exhibition.

 

The consultant team led by CLOUSTON Associates have produced an updated masterplan that combines the feedback from Councillors at the 15 July Briefing and feedback from the second round of stakeholder and community workshops held on 23 July.

 

Background

The project area covers open space areas both sides of the Nepean River and extends from just south of the M4 Motorway Bridge to just north of Victoria Bridge. The project takes into account greater extent but focuses on this section of the Nepean River.

 

The scope of the project to date has included: community engagement; masterplan principles; concepts; and now the draft masterplan.? Following public exhibition a final masterplan will be delivered with indicative costings and an implementation strategy with indicative staging.

 

It is anticipated that the masterplan will identify other projects which may be outside the permissible scope of the contributions plan.? These projects will then be prioritised and appropriate funding sought as required.

 

The development of the masterplan involves several stages of engagement and design with signoffs by the project team, Council and the community.? The following table outlines the key components of the project.

 

 

Item

Description / milestone

Dates

1

Consultant engagement

Complete

2

Community and stakeholder engagement program (includes surveys, interviews, web, workshops, media)

Nearing completion May - July

3

Issues identification and visioning phase

Complete May ? June with Councillor Briefing (3/6)

4

Develop draft concept options

June - July with Councillor Briefing (15/7)

5

Develop draft masterplan

July - August with Council Briefing (5/8)

6

Endorsement of Draft masterplan for Public Exhibition

Policy and Review Committee Meeting (12/8) NOW

7

Preparation for public exhibition and minutes adopted at Ordinary Meeting (26/8)

12-26 August

8

Public exhibition period

2 ? 30 September

9

Finalise masterplan and adopt

Ordinary meeting 11/11

 

The Draft Masterplan

The draft masterplan is now considered ready for public exhibition, taking into account the most recent feedback from Councillors at the Briefing on 5 August.? The minor change resulting from the briefing has resulted in the more explicit delineation of a tourism/caf?/restaurant area within Regatta Park.

 

Attached to this report are the panels proposed for public exhibition.

Public exhibition period will be between 2 and 30 September 2013 and will involve the following opportunities for feedback:

-???? panel boards on display in the Civic Centre library

-???? manned feedback stand at Hawkesbury Harvest markets on 7 September

-???? manned feedback stand in Tench Reserve near the Coffee Club on 7 September

-???? temporary display structures with display panels during the entire exhibition period in Tench Reserve and Regatta Park East

-???? Council?s web page dedicated to the project, containing the display material and engagement report (www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/OurRiver).

 

Next Steps

Following the exhibition period, the feedback received will be considered and the masterplan updated as appropriate. A report will be prepared containing more detailed information than presented on the exhibition panels, such as the process, all the engagement material, and implementation information. It is at this time that the detail will be available for accurate costings to be completed and a funding strategy will be developed for Council to consider. It is likely that this strategy will exceed the funds available through the District Open Space Contributions Plan and will need to target other funding sources including grant funding opportunities as they arise.

 

At any stage during the project, any feedback received from constituents by Councillors should be forwarded to Council?s project team for consideration (via the Major Projects Manager).

 

Conclusion

The draft masterplan is now considered ready for public exhibition, after which the final Our River masterplan will be developed.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Our River be received.

2.???? Council endorse the draft Our River Masterplan for public exhibition.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Draft Our River Masterplan

4 Pages

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

Appendix 1 - Draft Our River Masterplan

 




?


Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

5??????? Penrith City Council's Draft Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Policy ??????????????? 25

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

?

 

 

5

Penrith City Council's Draft Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Policy???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Tim Gowing, Senior Water Management Officer

Authorised by:??????????? Graham Liehr, Environmental Health Manager ??

 

Outcome

We care for our environment

Strategy

Protect and improve our natural areas, the Nepean River and other waterways

Service Activity

Contribute to the protection and enhancement of the City's natural environment

???????

 

Executive Summary

 

The Hawkesbury-Nepean River system is recognised as an important ecological, hydrological and recreational resource and Council?s City Strategy 2013 recognises urban and rural development is placing increasing pressure on the River.

 

Urban development results in significant modification to soils, catchment imperviousness and vegetation. As a result on the changes, stormwater runoff volumes and pollutant concentrations from urbanised catchments are typically elevated above natural conditions. The changes have been impacting on the water quality and stream bank stability in many of the creeks within the City.

The health of the Nepean River and creeks within the City has long been considered an important issue to both Council and the Community with ?community surveys in 2011 and 2012 confirming the community?s concerns.

 

Council?s City Strategy 2013 indicates the need to accommodate population growth of an additional 40,000 people and 25,000 more dwellings in the City by 2031. A Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) policy is needed to respond to growth and improve water conservation, quality and quantity in new development. A WSUD policy serves as a guide and provides developers with certainty when addressing merit based assessment criteria as part of the development process.

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council?s endorsement to place the draft WSUD policy on public exhibition to allow comment from the community and relevant industry. After the consultation period, submissions will be considered prior to presenting a final draft for adoption.

 

Background

 

The health of the Nepean River and creeks within the City has long been considered an important issue to both Council and the community.

 

The Hawkesbury-Nepean River system is recognised as an important ecological, hydrological and recreational resource and Council?s City Strategy 2013 recognises urban and rural development is placing increasing pressure on the River. Urban development results in significant modification to soils, catchment imperviousness and vegetation.? Surface runoff volumes and pollutant concentrations from urbanised catchments are typically elevated above natural conditions and convey elevated pollutant loads to receiving waters.? Urban development also has the potential to significantly increase surface runoff flow rates and volumes leading to impacts on stream stability, receiving water ecology and flooding. These pressures continue to present a threat to the health of the Nepean River and creeks within the City.

 

New urban development and redevelopment present both a risk to existing waterways as well as an opportunity to implement best practice water management measures. In conjunction with the State Government, Council has a role in planning, guiding and regulating urban development. As such, it is important that Council?s policies reflect the expectations of the community.

Council?s City Strategy 2013 indicates the need to accommodate population growth of an additional 40,000 people and 25,000 more dwellings in the City by 2031. The trend in development and its predicted growth as well as the results from community surveys further demonstrate the important role Council has with regards to maintaining the health of the waterways within the City. The City Strategy 2013 also includes a number of goals in relation to the protection of waterways and catchments within the City, these include the following:

 

???? Water is valued as a finite resource

???? Healthy natural catchments, groundwater and waterways.

???? Development and activities do not adversely impact on waterways and catchments.

?? Community awareness and involvement in water conservation and protecting water quality.

 

A Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) policy is needed to respond to growth and improve water conservation, quality and quantity in new development.

 

What is Water Sensitive Urban Design?

 

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is the sustainable management of water in urban areas through intelligent and integrated design. It takes into account all of the elements of the urban water cycle including; potable (drinking quality) water, rainwater, wastewater, stormwater and groundwater. Melbourne Water defines WSUD as:

??Water Sensitive Urban Design integrates urban water cycle management with urban planning and design, with the aim of mimicking natural systems to minimise negative impacts on the natural water cycle and receiving waterways and bays.?

 

Key principles of WSUD include:

 

???? Minimising the impact of urbanisation on the natural water cycle

???? Protecting and enhancing the natural aspects of landscapes

???? Treating urban stormwater for reuse and / or discharge to receiving waters

?? Reduce drinking water demand through water efficiency, stormwater harvesting and wastewater reuse, and

?? Integrating vegetated stormwater treatment and harvesting systems into the landscape, so as to provide microclimate benefits which can reduce the urban heat island effect.

 


WSUD includes a suite of technologies such as water efficient fittings and appliances, rainwater tanks to reduce potable water consumption and costs, as well as bioretention systems (raingardens), swales, wetlands, vegetated roofs and vertical gardens (green roofs and walls), to reduce the pollution from stormwater ending up in local waterways.

 

The principles of WSUD are not new in the Penrith LGA and are key consideration of Council?s Blueprint for the Release of Urban Areas 2005 which requires new developments within the release areas of the City to incorporate WSUD principles into their planning. Council?s City Strategy 2013 also recognises the important role that Water Sensitive Urban design can make in planning and states that Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) reflects a new paradigm in the planning and design of urban Environments that is ?sensitive? to the issues of water sustainability and environmental protection.

 

Examples of where WSUD principles have been incorporated into developments within the City include Caddens, the North Penrith estate which is currently being constructed, and throughout the Waterside Estate.

 

The draft WSUD Policy has been prepared to guide and provide developers with certainty when addressing merit based assessment criteria as part of the development process. It will assist development undertaken within the City to incorporate the principles of WSUD into their developments to minimise the impact on the natural water cycle and receiving waterways.

 

Existing Water Quality Management Controls

 

Planning controls regarding to stormwater quality management are found in Council?s 2006 and 2010 Development Control Plans (DCP). Water quality controls relating to industrial development can be found in Council?s 2010 DCP, although requirements to not cater for different development types. The Penrith DCP 2010 includes a section on Water Management controls with principles relevant to water quality and catchment management. The DCP includes a general list of stormwater treatment measures which may be considered in a development. However, with the exception of industrial development, there is no clear water quality, quantity or conservation performance targets for a particular development type or scale.

 

The WSUD policy can assist developers to understand and address merit based assessment in relation to water quality and conservation. The policy has been designed to fill existing information gaps including clarifying:

 

???? applicable development types and scales

???? requirements for water conservation

???? requirements for catchment management/water quality controls

???? requirements for management of erosive flows

???? acceptable solutions and controls

???? assessment methodology

 

Overview of the Draft Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Policy

 

The draft WSUD policy is consistent with the relevant principles and goals of the City Strategy 2013. The policy also builds on a number of Stormwater Management Plans developed by Council and will compliment the many education programs and environmental projects that have been completed by Council over recent years.

 

The draft policy aims to improve the management and reduce the impact of stormwater on the Nepean River and many creeks within the City. It also provides a framework to facilitate improved stormwater quality, reduce potable water consumption and assist in restoring the natural water cycle. It has also been developed with considerable consultation within Council including City Works, Parks, Engineering and Development Services. Further consultation with the community and relevant industry groups (developers) is proposed as part of a public exhibition period.

 

A clear benefit of the policy is that it provides directions to developers including design principles to incorporate WSUD within a range of development types within the City. The objectives in the policy also reflect the goals outlined in Council?s key strategic planning documents including to:

 

a.??? Protect and enhance natural water systems such as creeks and rivers in the Penrith LGA.

b.??? Treat urban stormwater to meet water quality objectives for reuse and/or discharge to receiving waters.

c.??? Match the natural water runoff regime as closely as possible (where appropriate).

d.??? Reduce potable water demand through water efficient fittings and appliances, rainwater harvesting and wastewater reuse.

e.??? Minimise wastewater generation and treatment of wastewater to a standard suitable for effluent reuse opportunities.

f.??? Integrate stormwater management into the landscape so as to maximise the visual and recreational amenity of urban development.

g.??? Provide objectives and controls for specific WSUD elements including water conservation, stormwater quality and waterway stability management.

 

Application of the Draft Policy

 

The Water Sensitive Urban Design requirements for a given development will depend on the scale and type. The performance criteria for stormwater conservation, quality and quantity outlined in the policy would apply to the following types of developments:?

 

?????? Residential development of 5 or more dwellings such as multi dwelling housing, residential housing residential flat buildings and mixed use development.

?????? Commercial, retail, mixed use and industrial development greater than 2,500m2 total site area.

?????? Alterations and additions where the increase in the roofed and impervious area is equal to or greater than 250m2.

?????? Commercial and industrial subdivisions and residential subdivisions of 5 or more lots.

 

In relation to water quality, the policy requires a reduction in the post development mean annual load of total gross pollutants, total suspended solids (TSS), Nitrogen (TN) and Phosphorus (TP) to be achieved. The policy also includes a flow management target which aims to reduce the impact on erosion within the creeks. For developments covered by the policy, a WSUD Strategy needs to be prepared which includes stormwater modelling to demonstrate how targets can be achieved.

Detailed information on how developers can meet the objectives will be available as an Appendix to the policy and will also be included on Council?s website. The application and controls set out in the policy are consistent with many similar policies in other Local Government Areas, including Blacktown and Parramatta.

 

Financial Considerations

 

The estimated costs for the construction and maintenance of water sensitive urban design systems vary considerably depending on the landuse practices, land zoning and treatment type. In terms of construction costs, Melbourne Water (2010) estimated construction costs range from less than $500 per m2 to greater than $1,500 per m2 per hectare depending on the treatment type for the treatment of developed land. Knights, Beharrell and Jonasson, (2010) reviewed a number of WSUD treatment systems across Sydney Councils. The study concluded there was a relatively stable cost of approximately $500 to $700 per m2 for treatment systems larger than 100m2.

 

The average annual maintenance costs for a range of WSUD measures range from around $2 per square metre to $12 per square metre per annum following the establishment period. It is worth noting the maintenance costs are expected to be higher for the first 5 years to allow for the establishment of vegetation. In most cases developers of land are required to maintain WSUD infrastructure for a period to allow for the establishment of the vegetation, meaning that Council would not inherit the initial higher maintenance costs.?

 

Many new release areas being built throughout the City such as Caddens, the North Penrith Estate and Waterside Estate already incorporate Water Sensitive Urban Design. The policy now clarifies development types that should consider WSUD. While this may result in additional cost to some development types, it is important to recognise WSUD principles should already be considered as part of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act section 79C considerations for all development. With this in mind, the policy is actually providing clarity to developers in relation to meeting their water quantity and quality obligations.

 

The broader adoption of WSUD principles for developments including residential and commercial could result potentially result in the dedication of some assets to Council for maintenance, for example rain gardens constructed in road verges or nature strips. The policy also relates to Council projects such as new car parks, roads and other infrastructure assets.

Council officers would have a role in the design of assets during either the project design or development assessment process to ensure construction and maintenance cost are minimised.

 

The cost benefit of implementing WSUD should be part of any project or development planning process. While it is difficult to quantify, construction and maintenance costs will potentially be offset by a reduction or avoidance of waterway rehabilitation costs.? The costs and benefits associated with the implementation of water sensitive urban design were tested in a Business Case developed by the South East Queensland Healthy Waterway Partnership, 2010. The study generally concluded that the benefits associated with the implementation of WSUD outweighed the costs of incorporating WSUD into developments. Key benefits include avoided waterway rehabilitation costs, prolonged life of stormwater conveyance systems, enhanced biological values, reduced nutrients in receiving waters and increased amenity and property values.

 

Financial Services Manager?s Comment

 

The annual budget development process gives consideration to assets being dedicated to Council from development.  This includes the allocation of additional funding for maintenance based on rates that have been developed for specific asset types, with these rates reviewed annually in consultation with the relevant Council Officers. As outlined in this report the maintenance impact of assets related to WSUD, like other asset types, can vary so it is important that a policy has developed to provide guidance and that Council Officers are involved in the assessment of these assets at the development process.  This will ensure that the best outcome is achieved for both the WSUD aspirations of the development and also Council?s long term maintenance obligations.

 

Conclusion

 

A Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) policy is needed to respond to growth and improve water conservation, quality and quantity in new development. The policy serves as a guide and provides Council and developers with consistency and certainty in relation to meeting water quality and quantity outcomes.

 

The draft policy clarifies developments required to incorporate stormwater treatment measures and builds on the many education programs and environmental projects that have been completed by Council over recent years. Importantly, the draft policy reflects community expectations identified the City Strategy and demonstrates Council?s leadership in regards to water management.

 

The costs associated with implementing the policy are expected to be outweighed by the long term benefits which include improved stormwater runoff, avoided waterway rehabilitation costs, prolonged life of stormwater conveyance systems, enhanced biological values, reduced nutrients in receiving waters and increased amenity and property values.

 

It is proposed the draft policy be placed on public exhibition to allow the community and relevant industry groups to provide comments before the policy is finalised and presented to Council for adoption.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Penrith City Council's Draft Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Policy be received.

2.???? That the draft Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) policy be on public exhibition for 30 days to seek comment from the Community and relevant industry groups.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Penrith City Council's Draft Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy

33 Pages

Attachment

???


Outcome 6 - We're healthy and share strong community spirit

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

6??????? Storage Facility at Peppertree Reserve and Netball Courts at Boronia Park ????????????????? 33

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

?

 

 

6

Storage Facility at Peppertree Reserve and Netball Courts at Boronia Park???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Virginia Tuckerman, Recreation Co-ordinator

Authorised by:??????????? Andrew Robinson, Recreation Manager ?

Requested By:???????????? Councillor Greg Davies

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

 

Outcome

We are healthy and share strong community spirit

Strategy

Provide opportunities for our community to be healthy and active

Service Activity

Provide and maintain sport and recreation facilities that meet community needs

???????

 

 

Executive Summary

A report was presented at Council?s Ordinary Meeting, on 22 July 2013, outlining the outcomes of grant submissions by local sports clubs and associations to NSW Communities Department of Sport and Recreation Participation and Facilities Program. The report highlighted that two applications for grants, by St Clair Comets Junior Rugby League Football Club (JRLFC) and St Marys Leagues Netball Club, had been successful but did not receive the full grant amount applied for, thus leaving project funding shortfalls. As a result, one of Council?s resolutions in relation to the report, on the motion of Councillor Greg Davies and seconded by Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM, was that:

??A further report be prepared for the next Policy Review Committee meeting on the shortfall in funding for the St Clair Comets JRLFC project in relation to the storage containers located next to the amenities building, and detailing any potential funding options from Council. In addition a further report be prepared on the funding shortfall for a project for the St Marys Leagues Netball Club.?

 

This report outlines that quotes have been received for both of the projects. The preferred quote for St Clair Comets JRLFC?s project to construct a storage facility at Peppertree Reserve is $89,788.? There is no contingency allowed for in the quote and an allowance of an additional 5% should be considered bringing the project cost to $94,277. The quote for St Marys Leagues Club?s project to construct two sealed netball courts at Boronia Park is $70,781 and includes contingencies.

 

The recommendation is that the information contained in the report on the Storage Facility at Peppertree Reserve and Netball Courts at Boronia Park be received.

Current Situation

St Clair Comets JRLFC?s proposed project is to construct a storage building. The much needed store will allow the club easier access to equipment and quicker set up times for training and on game days. This will create more time for volunteers to spend coaching and delivering rugby league programs. It will also alleviate the need for volunteers to use their own garages, utility rooms and the like to store equipment as well as transport it to and from

the ground.

 

The preferred quote is $89,788. The project funding to achieve this is as follows:

 

o???????? Grant Awarded???? ?????????????????????????????? $25,000 (applied for $50,000)

o???????? Club Contribution???????????????????????????????? $50,000

o???????? Total Funds Available??????????????????????????????????? $75,000

o???????? Value of Project Quote????????????????????????????????? $89,788

o???????? Shortfall??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? $14,788

 

o???????? Project cost with 5% contingency????????????????? $94,277

o???????? Shortfall including contingency????????????????? $19,277

 

St Marys Leagues Netball Club proposed project is to construct two sealed netball courts at Boronia Park. The construction of these courts will allow 14 teams, for age groups up to and including Under 18?s, to be provided with more sustainable and safe playing surfaces. The upgraded surfaces will also mean that all year round play is possible, help to attract more participants by having a better quality facility, and support talent and skill development. They will also benefit the sporting precinct, including rugby league and cricket fields, providing the opportunity for family members to attend and participate in a range of activities concurrently.? The preferred quote is $70,781.? The project funding to achieve this is as follows:

 

o?? Grant Awarded???? ?????????????????????????? $25,000 (applied for $33,000)

o?? Club Contribution??????????????????????????? $10,000

o?? Total Funds Available????????????????????? $35,000

o?? Value of Project Quote??????????????????? $70,781

o?? Shortfall????????????????????????????????????????? $35,781

 

The club submitted a grant application for $33,000 towards an estimated total project cost of $65,906. At the time of the submission, the club committed a contribution of $10,000 with an indication that Council would investigate opportunities within its budget to provide the remaining match funding required of $23,000 (based on the estimate provided) should the application be successful. The grant received is $8,000 less than the funds applied for, and the quote received for the work is now $4,875 more than the estimate upon which the grant was based. There is now a project shortfall of $35,781.

 

Financial Services Manager?s Comment

 

There are currently no identified Council budgets available to assist those clubs that have project shortfalls and realise the full scope of the proposed projects included in their grant submissions made to NSW Sport and Recreation Participation and Facility Program. Council?s Recreation Reserve currently has a budgeted closing balance of $48,003 as at 30 June 2014.?? However, it is likely that this Reserve will be required to further facilitate business modelling and future designs for the proposed Regional Tennis Facility. Several tennis court maintenance projects have also recently been identified and funds may be needed as repairs may exceed the existing tennis court operational budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed projects at Peppertree Reserve and Boronia Park undoubtedly offer significant community sport benefits. The clubs utilising both of these facilities have identified considerable match funding contributions to realise these projects, however given the funds available, it is not possible to realise the full scope of work. At this stage it is not the desire to reduce the scope of work for the projects, however this will need to be considered if funds are not realised to make up the current project shortfalls.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Storage Facility at Peppertree Reserve and Netball Courts at Boronia Park be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

 

There were no reports under this Delivery Program when the Business Paper was compiled



 

ATTACHMENTS???

 

 

Date of Meeting:???????? Monday 12 August 2013

Delivery Program:????? Outcome 4

Service Activity:???????? Support the revitalisation of Penrith City Centre, St Marys Town Centre and other key identified places in the City

Report Title:??????????????? Queen Street St Marys Streetscape Improvement Plan

Attachments:?????????????? Draft Queen st St Marys Streetscape Improvement Plan



Policy Review Committee Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

Attachment 1 - Draft Queen st St Marys Streetscape Improvement Plan

 































 

ATTACHMENTS???

 

 

Date of Meeting:???????? Monday 12 August 2013

Delivery Program:????? Outcome 5

Service Activity:???????? Contribute to the protection and enhancement of the City's natural environment

Report Title:??????????????? Penrith City Council's Draft Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Policy

Attachments:?????????????? Penrith City Council's Draft Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy



Policy Review Committee Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 12 August 2013

Attachment 1 - Penrith City Council's Draft Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy

 

































?